Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.

Entertaining show, but somewhat disappointed there was no real push back, even at the risk of being accused of ‘whataboutism’ when Mr. Tapper somehow overlooked, or it was NOT pointed out to him, that neither Kennedy–JFK, or McCarthy’s aid, RFK are ever put in league with all the other enablers of ‘Tailgunner Joe’s’ toxic excesses.

It is also odd that no specific allusion to the MSM’s hagiographic treatment of President Obama PRIOR to his inauguration…or the media quashing of then Senator Obama’s picture with Louis Farrakhan, or the tepid scrutiny of his attendance at Jeremiah Wright’s church for two decades.

Here’s hoping next episode Mr. Butler will ask about these significant omissions.

Tapper feels that it is incredibly meaningful that Trump’s followers accept Trump’s characterization of Schiff as “pencil neck” when Trump is himself overweight.

Really. Tapper spends a lot of time thinking about this, and cannot comprehend the level of insanity that makes this possible.

Tapper also cannot comprehend how one can criticize Chelsea Clinton and Biden’s son for cashing in on their parents’ politicial connections, but not hold Trump’s kids to the same standards. Goldberg, of course, does no state the obvious truth that Trump’s kids were business successes long before Trump entered politics.

The episode is an exercise in Trump hatred, and hatred of people who hate Trump insufficiently.

Jake Tapper used to be one of the most reasonable commentators for years. He’s like a shell of his former self. Your average American would have pushed back more than the resigned and defeated former National Review editor. However, where was Jonah supposed to interrupt? Every sentence? I quit listening twice. The interview was sort of disgusting. I don’t know that I will make a third attempt.

Now Tapper seems just as crazy as all the crazies. The stuff that Tapper says is way, way, way, way too far out there for me. Then CNN and the rest of the networks surround and boil themselves in constant mandatory blind Trump hatred. It’s like a religion. Jonah should have tapped out for the Tapper and let Brent Bozell finish the interview.

I haven’t technically owned a TV in over 10 years, but every clip I see of CNN makes them look awful, awful, awful. CNN was even sort of the conservative network back before FoxNews when compared to network news and when Robert Novak was on every program not to mention Pat Buchanan.

CNN used to be based in Georgia. Now I guess it is just another southern Manhattan network. It’s sort of the opposite of Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn’s idea to move most federal agencies out of the most Leftist, urban, wealthy, and partisan area of DC.

A network with James Clapper and Andrew McCabe. I thought they also had John Brennan, but I guess that is if you consider CNN and MSNBC to have any real fundamental difference.

It’s been a very long time since I listened to one of these podcasts, so I appreciate the comments demonstrating that this would be another poor use of my time. Perhaps Jonah will be taken seriously again if he ever gets over his TDS. Good luck with the Bulwark, Jonah!

Yeah, it’s been truly sad to see Jonah attempt to swim in these rather shallow intellectual waters.

I couldn’t have been the only person to notice the irony of Tapper calling Trump the equivalent of Joe McCarthy was preceded by what he would define as McCarthyism when he insinuates that Scott Baio is a rapist.

Jake Tapper is a garbage person and for some Charlie Sykes-like reason Jonah wants to be part of this crowd. Hope it works best for you Jonah.

There was an interesting discussion of the increasingly shameless use of double-standards. I must point out a phenomenon, where pointing out a particular hypocrisy or double-standard is brushed aside as “whataboutism”. This is used as a kind of rebuttal without an argument, a move-to-dismiss without evidence having been heard . However, whataboutism is, in fact, an appeal to consistency, to a larger principle spanning particular cases. I think we should not short-circuit an exploration of cases by simply citing whataboutism, and then quickly moving on.